Allowed

Abdul Khadar C P v. Canara Bank

Kerala HC25 Mar 2025WP(C)/7386/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the bank to lift the debit freeze from the amount captured in the police requisition. It ordered police to inform banks whether the seizure was reported to the Magistrate and within how much time; if not reported within two months, the freeze must be lifted.

What did the court decide?

Directing the bank to lift the debit freeze beyond the disputed amount and police to report seizure to Magistrate within two months.

Abdul Khadar C P Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

2025:KER:25988

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

WP(C) NO. 7386 OF 2025

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

ABDUL KHADAR C P
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O KUNHABDULLA, CHERIYA PUTHALATH, THIRUVALLUR,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673541

¶9

BY ADV MAAROOF

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1CANARA BANK
CHALAPPURAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER, , 18/395, CANARA BANK BUILDING, SAMOODHAM
ROAD, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT, KERALA, PIN - 673002

¶12

2 CANARA BANK

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE,
112, J.C ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560002

¶14

3THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BEGURU POLICE STATION, BEGUR RD, VISHWAPRIYA NAGAR,
BEGUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560068

¶15

4INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KSRP, DG IGP OFFICE, NO 1, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA, PIN - 560061

¶16

5NODAL OFFICER
NOTATIONAL CYBER CRIME REPORTING PORTAL, MINISTRY OF
HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110037

¶17

WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 2

¶18

2025:KER:25988

¶19

DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA SC SRI GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 3

¶22

2025:KER:25988

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2025

¶25

The writ petition is filed to direct the 1^st respondent

¶26

bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.1144104032619.

¶27

The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 1^st respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 1^st respondent bank has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisition received from the police. The action of the 1^st respondent is illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the total disputed amount is Rs.9,000/-. The said submission is recorded.

¶30

In considering an identical matter, this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows:

¶31

WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 4

¶32

2025:KER:25988

¶33

“ a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are directed to confine the order of freeze against the accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts, and transact therein, beyond that limit.

¶34

b. The respondent – Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to whether freezing of accounts of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions will require to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

c. On the Banks receiving the afore information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be.

¶36

d. If, however, no information or intimation is received by their Banks in terms of directions (b) above, the petitioners or such among them, will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all their contentions in these Writ Petitions are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future.”

¶37

Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

¶38

Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra) and taking into consideration Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation of Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

¶39

WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 5

¶40

2025:KER:25988 Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy [(1999)

¶41

7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 SCC 372] and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 895], has held thus:

¶42

“8. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that, while delay in forthwith reporting the seizure to the Magistrate may only be an irregularity, total failure to report the seizure will definitely have a negative impact on the validity of the seizure. In such circumstances, account holders like the petitioner, most of whom are not even made accused in the crimes registered, cannot be made to wait indefinitely hoping that the police may act in tune with S.102 and report the seizure as mandated under Sub-section (3) at some point of time. In that view of the matter, the following direction is issued, in addition to the directions in Dr.Sajeer (supra).

¶43

(i) The Police officer concerned shall inform the banks whether the seizure of the bank account has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with the S.102 is informed to bank within one month ofreceipt of a copy of the judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's account.

¶44

(ii) In order to enable the police to comply with the above direction, the bank as well as the petitioner shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the officer concerned and retain proof of such service.”

¶45

I am in complete agreement with the views in

¶46

Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above

¶47

WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 6

¶48

2025:KER:25988

¶49

principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand.

¶50

In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ petition by passing the following directions:

¶51

(i). The 1^st respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing order of the petitioner's bank account only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the Police Authorities. The above exercise shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to transact through his account beyond the said limit;

¶52

(ii). The Police Authorities are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's account will be required to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time;

¶53

(iii) On the Bank receiving the afore information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be;

¶54

(iv). If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Bank in terms of direction (ii) above, the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all his contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to him, to impel in future;

¶55

(v) The jurisdictional police officers shall inform the Bank whether the seizure of the bank account has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is

¶56

WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 7

¶57

2025:KER:25988

¶58

received by the Bank within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioner's bank account;

¶59

(vi) In order to enable the Police to comply with the above direction, the Bank, as well as the petitioner, shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional officer and retain proof of such service.

¶60

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶61

Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶62

AJ/26.03.2025

¶63

WP(C) No.7386 of 2025 8

¶64

2025:KER:25988

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7386/2025

¶66

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶67

Exhibit P1

¶68

A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.08.2024
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.1

Abdul Khadar C P v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khadar C P v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Basith Mk Vs Union of India

Nh Fruits through Its Proprietor Muhammed Swalih T M Vs Federal Bank

N.Prakash Vs Advocate K.M.Shajahan

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anas P Vs Airtel Payments Bank

Muhamed Safvan E Vs Union of India